Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

Bouh at Bouh at
Mon Apr 12 05:24:08 EST 2004

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:27:55 +0100, David Longley
<David at> wrote:

>In article <c0fj705aq3u4ga4ipvhqll4vb2prmimuc9 at>, 
>Bouh@?.?.invalid writes
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:29:41 GMT, lesterDELzick at
>>(Lester Zick) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:08:20 +1000, "Peter F."
>>><effectivespamblock at> in wrote:
>>>><Bouh> wrote in message news:ndbg701bj7q26e4d4rel0j1o9456u8fn5d at
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:14:07 +0100, David Longley
>>>>> But there is a little misunderstanding: I've never said that QM played
>>>>> a role in intelligence. It might or might not. I don't know. But I
>>>>> don't rule out the possibility.
>>>>Nor should you rule it out, IMO.
>>>>Anyone contemplating carefully (and commenting reasonably) from a broadly
>>>>science aligned/informed position of overview, will have to conclude that
>>>>quantuum world (aspect of 'What Is going on') is fundamental to any and
>>>>every aspect of how we are.
>>>This is incorrect. We cannot exclude quantum effects as the mechanical
>>>basis for sentience. But there is no justification for concluding that
>>>such effects are definitely the mechanical basis for sentience without
>>>comprehending the mechanics of sentience.
>>In fact, DL says, in a way, that his experiments ( and day to day work
>>) don't need a functional basis other than behaviour at the highest
>>level ( human or animal behaviour ). I guess he gets enough
>>"significant" results but the problem is that he's just studying
>>behaviour, not intelligence. Most of the tasks we perform don't
>>require real intelligence ( make coffee, drive a car, play tennis...
>>). But even while performing these stupid tasks, the brain reacts with
>>such a blazing speed that it wouldn't astonish me if QM plays a
>>functional role. Now, of course, it has to be said that Peter is also
>>right in the sense that since all matter and energy follows the rules
>>of QM, everything scientifically known to man depends on it ( it was a
>>message I tried to send to DL for some time, without being able to
>>express it as clearly )
>You are referring (vaguely) to some classes of behaviour as 
>"intelligent" and others as not so, and probably because you don't have 
>a better grasp of behaviour and the contingencies which shape it. If you 
>worked on that, you might find yourself talking less the way that you do 
>above, to the extent that you might, ultimately be able to dispense with 
>such mentalistic terms.

I'd rather put reflexes in the not-intelligent group of behaviours and
the invention of the laser, which is based on an effect that had never
been observed and which is a consequence of theories, in the
intelligent group.

>You might find that engineering gets easier along the way.
>>>>It does not matter if we cannot yet (_or_ never) experimentally correlate
>>>>anything that we might mean by consciousness (or 'mentally or motorially
>>>>manifest behaviour', for that matter) with observations of 'quantuum-weird
>>>>world' made in the field of fundamental physical science.
>>>>And one last thing:
>>>>Human consciousness (however people like to think about it or explain it)
>>>>has nothing to do with the fact that plants and animals, and geological and
>>>>astrophysical events, got fossilized (in various ways) for us to find that
>>>>they did; _Only_ us finding out _that_ it all did does.
>>>Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list